The Global Warming Zealots continue to dismiss the East Anglia e-mails as an anomaly … in other words “fake but accurate” … but the flood gates have opened and the GW ship is taking on water faster than the sea levels are rising, which is not hard, may I say.
The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.
“The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The e-mails don’t negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.
But this is not going away anytime soon. Jim Hoft at Gateway posts: Last week, a group called “We Are Change Chicago”, confronted Al Gore on the e-mails at a book signing. Crazy stuff.
For those of you who need a primer, I saved this article from CBS a few days ago because it clearly outlines how these e-mails are so much more than an anomaly. They represent research, or lack there of, from a group that is at the very core of the IPCC reports and thus the Dems efforts to control our energy future.
The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.
Last week’s leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field’s most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data (“have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots”), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
Save this one … it’s full of good stuff.